Hi Matt. I agree that "icon" can be a triadic sign if there is the object it refers to and the intepretant it determines on its interpreter, whether here and now, or sometime in the future. In this sense, all of the 9 types of signs are triadic signs as I have been advocating against Edwina's view that they are not signs because they only refer to dyadic relations, i.e., R-R, R-O and R-I relations in 3 categorical modes.
But, icons are different from index or from symbols in that it can act as a sign even without its object and interpretant (as Pointed out by Peirce) neither now nor in the future, like the lead-pencil streak on a blackboard. It is in this sense that I am referring to icon as a monadic sign, and index a dyadic sign and symbol as a triadic sign. Again, I admit that, depending on the context, icon, index and symbol can be viewed as triadic as mentioned above. This is what I mean by the "ambiguity of the sign": "Icon can be viewed as triadic or dyadic, depending on the context of discourse." (122915-1) Sung On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peirce's "there were" means 'existent'. In the past, here, I've spoken of > the "potential interpretant". In the hypothetical science that mathematics > is, a pencil-lead streak forming a (rough but acceptable) circle signifies > the hypothetical object of a perfect circle. In these cases the signs are > still only signs within their triad; it's just that the object or > interpretant doesn't need to be existent. > > Matt > > On 12/29/15 3:14 PM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > On 12/29/15 2:56 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Jon A, List, > > Here is one quotation of Pierce cited in Charles Peirce's Guess at the > Riddle (K. Sheriff, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994): > > "A sinsign may be index or icon. As index it is 'a sign which would, at > once, (122915-1) > lose the chracter wich makes it a sign if its object were removed, but > would > not lose that character if there were no interpretant." > > That's in CP 2.304 > > "A sign is either an icon, an index, or a symbol. An icon is a sign which > would possess the character which renders it significant, even though its > object had no existence; such as a lead-pencil streak as representing a > geometrical line. An index is a sign which would, at once, lose the > character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not > lose that character if there were no interpretant. Such, for instance, is a > piece of mould with a bullet-hole in it as sign of a shot; for without the > shot there would have been no hole; but there is a hole there, whether > anybody has the sense to attribute it to a shot or not. A symbol is a sign > which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no > interpretant. Such is any utterance of speech which signifies what it does > only by virtue of its being understood to have that signification." > > > > So it seems to me that (122915-1) establishes the concept of a *dyadic > sign*. > > Therefore, > > "Not all signs are triadic." > (122915-2) > > as some Peirceans on this list seem to believe. > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
